Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Jeff, You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dominik, Why do you continue to feed the troll? http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:46 PM To: ALAC NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Jeff, You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Indeed, an interesting curriculum vitae :-)) A sly fellow that Jeff... I responded to Jeff's view I'd found interesting, no matter whoever is behind the identity. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:52 PM To: Dominik Filipp; ALAC NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik, Why do you continue to feed the troll? http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:46 PM To: ALAC NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Jeff, You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Dominik and all, Well as you know Dominik, you have my phone number by which to contact me. And my Address is registered in the federal registry for all to access should they choose to do so. I cannot receive Darlenes posts as I and all our members in order to protect themselves must block gov.nu.ca which is the DN of her Email address. See: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=gov.nu.ca&token=2700a6... For instance especially see: "FAIL: Open DNS servers ERROR: One or more of your nameservers reports that it is an open DNS server. This usually means that anyone in the world can query it for domains it is not authoritative for (it is possible that the DNS server advertises that it does recursive lookups when it does not, but that shouldn't happen). This can cause an excessive load on your DNS server. Also, it is strongly discouraged to have a DNS server be both authoritative for your domain and be recursive (even if it is not open), due to the potential for cache poisoning (with no recursion, there is no cache, and it is impossible to poison it). Also, the bad guys could use your DNS server as part of an attack, by forging their IP address. Problem record(s) are: Server 216.108.1.1 reports that it will do recursive lookups. [test] Server 216.108.1.2 reports that it will do recursive lookups. [test] See this page for info on closing open DNS servers." And: "FAIL Missing (stealth) nameservers FAIL: You have one or more missing (stealth) nameservers. The following nameserver(s) are listed (at your nameservers) as nameservers for your domain, but are not listed at the parent nameservers (therefore, they may or may not get used, depending on whether your DNS servers return them in the authority section for other requests, per RFC2181 5.4.1). You need to make sure that these stealth nameservers are working; if they are not responding, you may have serious problems! The DNSreport will not query these servers, so you need to be very careful that they are working properly." And further still see: "FAIL Stealth NS record leakage Your DNS servers leak stealth information in non-NS requests: Stealth nameservers are leaked [ns3.internorth.net.]! This can cause some serious problems (especially if there is a TTL discrepancy). If you must have stealth NS records (NS records listed at the authoritative DNS servers, but not the parent DNS servers), you should make sure that your DNS server does not leak the stealth NS records in response to other queries. ns3.internorth.net. This is listed as an ERROR because there are some cases where nasty problems can occur (if the TTLs vary from the NS records at the root servers and the NS records point to your own domain, for example)." And to top it off, gov.nu.ca DN has no abuse or postmaster Email addresses a significant violation of IETF standard! >:( And BTW, I have absolutely no interest in being sly in any manner, as such behavior is dishonorable and deceiving intentionally. I have always found such behavior very disgusting! >:( As such I am very saddened and sorry to read Darlene's amateurish and seemingly adolescent display in using false claims and name calling as a means to enhance her very faulty argument accordingly. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Indeed, an interesting curriculum vitae :-)) A sly fellow that Jeff...
I responded to Jeff's view I'd found interesting, no matter whoever is behind the identity.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:52 PM To: Dominik Filipp; ALAC NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
Dominik,
Why do you continue to feed the troll?
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:46 PM To: ALAC NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
Jeff,
You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
Dominik and all,
If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC.
So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants.
Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
No worries! I made that mistake once, too... Lead to ALL kinds of private and public e-mails from him. Have fun! :) Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Dominik Filipp [mailto:dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:08 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: ALAC NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Indeed, an interesting curriculum vitae :-)) A sly fellow that Jeff... I responded to Jeff's view I'd found interesting, no matter whoever is behind the identity. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:52 PM To: Dominik Filipp; ALAC NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik, Why do you continue to feed the troll? http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:46 PM To: ALAC NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Jeff, You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (3)
-
Dominik Filipp -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Thompson, Darlene